Carlock Copeland Congratulates Robert Hawk and Jeffrey Crudup on Being Selected to Join the Firm's Partnership

Robert Hawk is a partner in the Charleston office where he represents business owners, professionals, and insurance companies in civil litigation and insurance coverage matters.

Robert serves on the Charleston County Bar Executive Committee and as a South Carolina Bar Foundation Ambassador. He was a member of Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce's Leadership Charleston Class of 2012 and previously served as a Roper St. Francis Foundation Fellow and on the South Carolina Bar Young Lawyers Division Habitat for Humanity Wills Committee. Robert was named a South Carolina Rising Star® by Super Lawyers® in 2016.

Jeff Crudup is a partner in the Charleston office and focuses his practice on complex civil cases involving medical malpractice, automobile and motor carrier accidents and commercial litigation. Prior to joining Carlock Copeland, Jeff practiced in a large law firm based in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. He has an array of litigation experience involving medical malpractice, construction litigation, employment litigation, general business and commercial litigation, and real estate disputes. Jeff also has experience providing general business advice to clients. As a litigator with transactional business experience, he works to limit the costs of litigation to his clients while working for the best possible outcomes for them. Since coming to Charleston, Jeff has become an active member of the South Carolina bar, but remains a member of the Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New York Bars.

What Every Adjuster Needs to Know: Part 1 by Sarah Wetmore and Clinton Magill

Additional Insured (AI) demands are on the rise in South Carolina. Those demands are increasingly having a significant impact on construction litigation disputes with general contractors, developers, subcontractors (and their respective carriers) fiercely debating the obligations under their contracts and insurance policies. To help you navigate this complex topic, we have broken down what you need to know about AI issues into a series of articles in a series of quarterly writings.

As even those outside the legal profession know, the right to a jury trial is fundamental in American law. Another familiar legal concept is the class action lawsuit, where a group of similarly situated plaintiffs can band together to bring a civil suit, often against larger corporate defendants. Less familiar is that these rights - the right to a jury trial and the right to form a class action - can be contracted away. While jurisdictions may vary and each case turns on its own set of facts, this is the conclusion that the South Carolina Court of Appeals reached earlier this year in the case
The Gates at Williams-Brice Condominium Association v. DDC Construction, Inc., et al. In the construction litigation context, this case is particularly notable given the increasing number of class action claims that general contractor, design professional and subcontractor defendants face.

Kimberly Reeves and
Michael Manfredi presented
Is There an App for Liability? The Practice of Law in a Shared Economy on Dec. 9 at the Marjorie and Ralph Knowles Conference Center in Atlanta.

There seems to be an ever-increasing number of companies entering the shared economy-from Uber to Airbnb to Roadie, these companies are rapidly restructuring how we operate as consumers. Much of the shared economy business model remains an under-regulated Wild West that presents liability landmines in a number of ways. Our panelists will discuss recent cases and emerging issues that examine the tension inherent in regulating the sharing economy including insurance, taxes, and consumer rights. Beyond that, there are ethical issues that lawyers encounter both in advising these clients and participating in the shared economy.

Gary Lovell and
Andy Countryman obtained a defense verdict in a week-long medical malpractice trial in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Plaintiff was a 46-year old who suffered injuries including hip fractures and dislocation in an automobile accident in August 2010. The Defendant orthopedic surgeon saw Plaintiff in the ER and reduced the hip dislocation. The Defendant also saw Plaintiff for follow up over the ensuing months, during which Plaintiff's hip pain never resolved. The Defendant ultimately performed a hip replacement surgery on Plaintiff. Following the surgery and after initially improving, Plaintiff experienced hip pain and complained of an awkward gait and leg length differential. Plaintiff sued the orthopedic surgeon alleging he performed an unnecessary hip replacement procedure and performed the surgery incorrectly leading to a leg length discrepancy. Plaintiff sought over $400,000 in damages. The jury returned a defense verdict after deliberating for 35 minutes.

Shannon SprinkleandTyler Wetzelprevailed for the second time at the Georgia Supreme Court on behalf of its out-of-state law firm client. In a related 2015 case, Shannon and Ty had secured a reversal of a trial court injunction of prior advertisements. This second lawsuit contended that the law firm had infringed upon the trademarks of a national nursing home facility group. The Plaintiff sought relief under Georgia's trademark anti-dilution statute. The trial court entered a permanent injunction prohibiting the law firm from placing any advertisements which used the nursing home's service marks, trade names, logos, or photographs of such. Shannon and Ty appealed the injunction to the Georgia Supreme Court, assisted by co-counsel specializing in trademark law. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order finding that the law firm's advertisements did not infringe upon the nursing home facilities' trademarks. Justice Nahmias authored the opinion holding that "[not] every unwelcome use of one's trademark in the advertising of another provides a basis for a tarnishment claim." He said the law firm was using the nursing home logo in a descriptive manner and "counting on the public to identify" the facility. Nahmias added, "In short, the ad very clearly was an ad for a law firm and nothing more." A link to the Daily Report's coverage of the Supreme Court's ruling is below. The Supreme Court's holding is a victory for law firms that rely upon legal advertisements. Although legal advertising is clearly permitted under the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, this case and the earlier 2015 case show that such advertisements may continue to be challenged on other legal grounds and remain hotly contested. Please click here for more information.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Defeated in South Carolina

Paul Sperry and Tyler Wintonsuccessfully defeated Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in South Carolina. As a result, Plaintiffs' attempt to secure class certification of a neighborhood of single family homes was denied. This is a huge win for all construction clients and carriers in South Carolina.

Suzanne Deters organized members of the firm to donate jackets, bed comforters, pillows, towels, toiletries and snacks for the Carolina Youth Development Center's Urgent Needs "Wish List" over the holidays.

The CCS Quarterly Newsletter is a periodic publication of Carlock, Copeland & Stair, LLP, and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only, and you are urged to consult counsel concerning your own situation and any specific legal questions you have.

Since 2008, litigation has been ongoing between G.M. Sign, Inc. and Brink's Manufacturing Co. over allegations that Brink's violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending out unsolicited faxes without any ability by the recipient to opt out of receiving... Continue reading → The post 11th Circuit To Hear Dispute Over Notice Requirements After Dismissal Without Prejudice appeared first on Insurance Coverage Corner.
...»

On November 28, 2016, the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services, the entity responsible for HIPAA administration, issued an alert about a potential "phishing" email scam. The email purports to come from OCR's Director,... Continue reading → The post Office of Civil Rights Issues Phishing Email Alert appeared first on Carlock Copeland Cyber Liability.
...»

Determining whether your company is subject to liability for a defect in the chemical composition of a drug, or for a failure to adequately warn of dangers associated with the drug, can be a frustrating task. Earlier this month, a... Continue reading → The post Federal Preemption: Determining Whether Federal Law Prevents Pharmaceutical Companies From Being Sued appeared first on Carlock Copeland Life Sciences. ...»

In a lengthy ruling covering many issues related to a trial, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the exclusion of a doctor's past substance abuse issues on the grounds of relevance. In the case of Doherty v. Brown, et al.,... Continue reading → The post Georgia Court of Appeals Affirms Exclusion of Doctor's Substance Abuse appeared first on Health Law and Regulation Update. ...»